4 ms·

How would eliminating the tribalism subroutine benefit the species? Is a homogeneous global population the most resilient?

AckSyn 8y ago
monocultures tend to be best for societies, so if the global population were a monoculture, the homogenous nature of one would be beneficial. But since that's an impossibility currently, leaving each nation to be its own monoculture is best.
ModernMech 8y ago
Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous.
- naravara 8y ago
  >Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous. Plenty of societies have extremely durable, endogamous tribal identifiers and they got along fine. This is true of India, China, The Ottoman Empire, and so on. India, in particular, has some of the most durable and persistent forms of tribalism around, with castes having remained largely endogamus for centuries or more despite living, working, and trading with each other routinely. Yet this didn't prevent them from alternating with China (itself extremely tribally divided despite the modern attempts to sweep it under the rug and cohere a "Han" nationality) at being the 1st or 2nd most prosperous civilization in the world for most of human history.
sgift 8y ago
I look around me and have neighbors from dozens of cultures and backgrounds, hundreds of opinions and all walks of life. Young, old, sick, healthy, everything in between. How is this homogeneous?
croon 8y ago
Yes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320705002089 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070... But more broadly, that's likely also true for culture and knowledge.

AckSyn 8y ago

monocultures tend to be best for societies, so if the global population were a monoculture, the homogenous nature of one would be beneficial. But since that's an impossibility currently, leaving each nation to be its own monoculture is best.

ModernMech 8y ago

Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous.

naravara 8y ago
>Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous. Plenty of societies have extremely durable, endogamous tribal identifiers and they got along fine. This is true of India, China, The Ottoman Empire, and so on. India, in particular, has some of the most durable and persistent forms of tribalism around, with castes having remained largely endogamus for centuries or more despite living, working, and trading with each other routinely. Yet this didn't prevent them from alternating with China (itself extremely tribally divided despite the modern attempts to sweep it under the rug and cohere a "Han" nationality) at being the 1st or 2nd most prosperous civilization in the world for most of human history.

sgift 8y ago

I look around me and have neighbors from dozens of cultures and backgrounds, hundreds of opinions and all walks of life. Young, old, sick, healthy, everything in between. How is this homogeneous?

croon 8y ago

Yes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320705002089 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070... But more broadly, that's likely also true for culture and knowledge.